Questioning a theory, how much of an expert do you need to be?

Here is really awesome and most exciting publish. I definitely believe the easy truth with you and would like to say thanks to you that you discuss this publish here with us. I wish that you will keep discuss your publish here with us.

 

I am an expert in the geographical theory of CO2 emissions and respiration of animal life on earth. However, you now are believably sending me into the value of baring the setting of credit card numbers as an involved aspect in the valid concept of Global Equilibrium. The theory is that I should be submitting to your dogmatic ideas instead of the dogmatic ideas of the atmospheric absorption and re-emission to the earth's surface of an energy budget.

Which is alright; as long as my fingers can't do the walking through the yellow pages. Theories conflict with ideas and they always will. But if the empirical evidence is that the polar ice caps are melting why feel that that is a dark ages punishment from God?

 

questioning is a good attribute in a person and a society, but when defending or detracting from a theory or observation, one needs to follow good scientific process and not be biased. Too many common sense things turn out to be wrong eventually - how many times have they changed the protocol on snake bite treatment.
What I find irritating are people who loudly proclaim something is wrong or something is right, but are unable to support their position with anything more than prejudiced opinion and loud bluster.

 

to question in a way that makes sense, you need to understand the consensus of existing evidence, well enough to do so. not necessarily the existing consensus of conclusions based on that evidence, but you do need to have some reasonable understanding of that evidence itself.

 

Is this a matter of choice, or relationships that you are born into?

 

Singularly Scientific Nonsense

Among physicists they like to say,
"It's turtles all the way down baby",
While in Asia the same joke is,
"The lights aren't always on,
And there's nobody home,
But us chickens."
At the very least,
Sometimes, dimly aware,
Self-stimulation,
Is redundant.
Henceforth, let it be known,
The moment I become perfectly humble,
I want the whole world to rest assured,
Please skip any bowing and scraping,
Anyone might think could possibly be desirable.
However, adoring fans are perfectly acceptable,
And we also accept cash and all major credit cards.
Scientific proof now available for only $39.95!!!
Filling the void on the road to nowhere,
I play with my ego all the time,
It's fun just hanging out together,
And my ego certainly doesn't mind,
If me, myself, and I occasionally have some fun!
Nonetheless, therefore, and upon reflection,
In incontrovertible conclusion,
Everyone knows it's scientifically impossible,
To tickle your own fancy.
It's a singular idea I tell you,
That anyone might propose,
To suggest for even a moment,
That a singularity might,
Just for a moment mind you,
Make singular sense!
Eureka!!
Me, myself, and I have found it at long last!!
Uncommonly unique to say the very least!!!
And, as uncommon common sense would have it,
Mere common common sense,
Is for commoners,
Not more refined educated folk.
A singularly uncommonly nonsensical and never to be dismissed,
Scientific nonsense.
All singularly piled higher and deeper if you ask me.
Mama always said, she didn't raise no damned fools,
And I worked hard to become the singularly verbose butthole I am.

 

My dad is a chemical engineer, and an expert on preventing ozone depletion. Not sure what all it entails but I would trust his opinion regarding the OP. I agree with what Meagain said about trusting certain sources before others. I would trust the researchers at a University who have studied a particular subject day in and day out for 27 years before some random who decided to poke holes in something he deemed controversial.

 

Always question. Science does not work without questions. You don't need to be an expert, just posses interest and common sense.

Did you know that String Theory is founded on a flawed assumption? That because gravity is the warpage of space then matter must be something else. To me that is about as absurd as saying that toilet water in a vortex state can not contain bubbles. A body of water can contain both vortexes and bubbles. The fabric of space can contain gravity fields, magnetic fields, and energy fields (which are simply magnetic fields moving over time) all in the same area. They are all patterns of spatial displacements.

Even geniuses and experts have flaws and are prone to errors like everyone else. I've spoken with doctors who don't seem to have a shred of common sense about certain things.

 

For a very long time in America, science education has been lacking. At the same time, corporate marketing messages that try to make us feel good about oil drilling, fracking, industrial products that they call food, etc., have been bombarding us. And then there is Fox News, which more people watch for "news" than any other outlet and which promotes unscientific views. As a result, you have more people than ever thinking they understand scientific issues when they really don't.

I agree with Meagain, you need to trust the consensus of scientists and other scholars more than any other source.

 

I like being able to read the actual research from the beginning.
It is amazing how many errors in methodology get missed.
It's not enough to know what the results are, but just as important to know how they were obtained.
I have seen published research that was constructed incorrectly from it's inception, yet got funding and published.

Shit, the entire scare about vaccines was all based on one idiots FAKED research, and we all know how big of a shit storm that caused and still causes, even though the guy who started it has been revealed as an idiot and admitted to falsifying the results.
Along those lines it also helps to know what is going on in related fields.
For example sticking with the vaccine controversy. Guy claimed vaccines caused autism, publishes report and before long we start seeing an increase in the number of diagnosis for autism. So on the surface it looks as if there is a correlation between the use of certain vaccines and an increase in the number of cases of autism.

The fact that didn't get widely published is that the powers that be, after decades of research, redefined the diagnostic criteria for autism and placed it into the realm of being a syndrome with myriad manifestations of symptoms.
So in reality what occurred wasn't an actual increase in the number of cases of autism, they simply broadened the criteria to diagnose it and overnight you have millions who previously didn't fall within that criteria that now do and are subsequently diagnosed as autistic.
Vaccines had nothing to do with it, they just redefined what constitutes autism.

That is one reason you always see me asking for the original research when people make claims that seem untenable in the forums.